IT TOOK a jury just 20 minutes of deliberation to decide that Andrew Woodhouse was not guilty of grievous bodily harm when he defended his property against two burglars.

Andrew Woodhouse defended his home from burglars but was then taken to court and cleared of GBH [WALES NEWS SERVICE]

That is the best advertisement for the jury system that there has been for years.

Questions must now be asked as to why the Crown Prosecution Service went ahead with the case in the first place – at a cost to taxpayers of £50,000 and no doubt at a cost to Mr Woodhouse of many a sleepless night.

Claims that the prosecution made about the alleged use of excessive force by Mr Woodhouse during the incident rightly cut no ice whatsoever with the jurors in this trial.

It is frankly ludicrous to expect that a man who is awoken in the dead of night to find two criminals on his property should calibrate his response in the way a trained police officer might.

And perhaps the jury kept another factor in mind as well: every time a criminal is injured in the course of his nefarious deeds, a useful signal is sent out that just occasionally crime still does not pay.

Far too often we read reports of frail householders being battered by burglars who feel emboldened by soft justice.

Reading about an episode where the criminals came off worse – much worse – is actually good for public morale.

One thing can be safely predicted: Mr Woodhouse will not have to buy his own drinks in his local pub for a long time.